Pervez Musharraf and India Pakistan Rapproachment

Col Koolaid:


but Musharraf, in my opinion, can also take a large measure of credit for this change. This was not an easy road for Musharraf to travel


there's a saying in bombay..majboori ka naam maatma gandhi..loosely translates to making a virtue out of a necessity...


He was the architect of the Kargil adventure and immensely proud of his role in it.


Immensely proud of his role in an operation where, according to nawaz sharif and others, 4000 paki soldiers died without an inch of territory to show for it?

mmkay..



indeed Shoab Akhtar is as popular in India as in Pakistan and Sachin Tendulkar so in Pakistan.


here's the kicker..indian kashmir is as desired in india as it is in pakiland..and therein lies the rub..pakis want what they can't have...everything else is moot..



Musharraf’s personality, especially his penchant for taking quick decisions and decisive actions under the changed circumstances in which Pakistan found itself following the US “war on terror”

he was given a choice..get on board or stone age...seems like a pretty simple choice to make

DM-jee,

The reapproachment between the two countries was inevitable and was dictated by the circumstances around the world. Mushy (although a benign dictator as dictators go) deserves no credit for it. In fact, the way I see it, he did everything he could do to delay the process and to buy time for himself hoping that eventually it will all "blow over". Without him, under a civilian leadership, the reapproachment could probably have happened earlier. The Pakistanis would perhaps have gotten more concessions on Kashmir valley (from India) than now they are ever likely to even see in their dreams - thanks to all the stunts that Musharraf pulled when he was a "bad boy"!

[One of the less noticed aspects of these elections was the complete lack of hostility towards India during the electoral campaigns of various candidates and political parties. There was no rhetoric calling for a thousand-yearwar; no mention of completing the “unfinished business” of the Partition, no talk of jihad to liberate Muslim brothers suffering under the Hindu yoke nor of bleeding India with a thousand cuts - not even of providing principled support to the Kashmiris’ struggle for freedom. This was a vast change from most previous elections when political parties vied with each other for anti-Indian rhetoric]

Were you there to witness this or are you depending on news reports?

#3 take away indians from chowk, and see how much discussion there is on india.

trouble with indians like you is that you are obsessed with the slap in the face you received in 1947. thus - 60 years later you are defining your entire existence on chowk as "slamming islam". you people are pathetic.

tauheed sahib, the partition caused hundreds of thousands to get butchered. There were rivers of blood! And all that you remember is a "slap" in whoever's face!

You are absolutely wrong, of course!

Who are you kidding! The people who really suffered the worst effects of the partition were the Pakistanis themselves - and even now, they are not out of the woods, by any means.

Therefore, referring to a "slap" is like cutting your own nose to spite your neighbor!

And Jinnah did nobody any favors, and you know it! He caused some serious damage, in fact.

#4 Posted by tahmed32 on February 25, 2008 5:38:50 pm


#3 take away indians from chowk, and see how much discussion there is on india.


Stop terrorism and see how many indians are left on chowk.

take away pakistanis from the world and see how little terrorism there is in the world..

photo of the general who got whacked.

arjun_5:

"he was given a choice..get on board or stone age...seems like a pretty simple choice to make"

Musharraf's response was because of his unique situation as a military dictator. This was both his weakness and his strength. his weakness was that he did not have a mandate from the people and could not resist the US pressure like Nawaz Sharif did when confronted with similar pressure by Clinton not to explode a nuclear weapon; his strength was that he did not have to look over his shoulder to see if the army would support in agreeing to the US demand.

#6 arjun - admit it. you dont have a life. you dont even have a decent indian site to go to saturday nights when the world is having fun, you are sitting before your keyboard piling your misery on chowk. ha! ha!

bjkumar#2:

As I said in the article, it is difficult to predict what would have happened if Musharraf was not there; a peace process was already in progress and there was a great deal of optimism in the air after Vajpayee's trip to Lahore. But we also know that there had been many such attempts in the past but they had been thwarted by the men in khaki. Musharraf, too, had tried to pour cold water on Vajpayee's Lahore visit by not showing up to welcome him.

#5 bjkumar: show me a pakistani who calls himself "IslamHinduism" to match yuour "IslamIslam". Show me a pakistani who has written a quadzillion posts starting with "hindoo.." to match our "Arjun". Show me a pakistani who talks about the imminent demise of India for the past 8 years to match Uay.

Then come and tell me the slap in the face does not hurt. I refer of course to SOME indians. so keep that in mind when objecting.

IslamIslam:

Was that a serious question?

We have a saying in the North,

Dulha nahin banay tau kya baraat bhi nahin gaye?

Roughly translated, it means, that you don't always have to have a ringside seat to witness the spectacle.

oh, and i forgot the lad who has been turned into a laddu and can talk about nothing but how he is an idol worshipper and all the muslims on chowk are out to kill him. jesus christ!! you need a million shrinks in India!!

#8 Posted by dost_mittar on February 25, 2008 7:39:13 pm

The consequences were completely different in both cases...Post 9/11, the US govt was mighty pissed and would have bombed pureland if he had refused..heck,...he basically had a very easy choice..

heck..they agreed and the US government is still dropping hellfires without permission from his army...

and as far as the paki people's mandate goes, they're all hat and no cattle...they don't have the b@lls to stick with their jihadi buddies...love for allah only goes so far...

tahmed32:

Have you read the article, sir? You may have a different comment after that.

greetings dost mittar. didnt mean to mess up your board, but seriously..some of your countrymen have serious issues, as dr. phil would say.

#11 Posted by tahmed32 on February 25, 2008 7:45:31 pm

prophetboy...not that I care for your opinion, but there are a ton of pakis who have openly admitted to supporting the jihadis i.e. the islamic terrorists..

heck..your great analyst capt clueless is a great example..during the t-shirt with paki flag days, he was telling us pakiland had uncle sam's wind in her sails and was threatening to sic the jihadis on india if it didn't hand over kashmir...

tell me prophetboy...if you pakis are pure as the wind driven snow, why were you put first on the register/fingerprint list? why are the visa applications of paki males of a certain age cleared in DC? why does atif get the TSA danda treatment...

arjun_5:

I won't disagree that situation changed after 9/11 and have referred to it in my piece. But I also recall the unrelenting pressure on Nawaz Sharif from Clinton over a period of three weeks. I have a feeling that a military leader would have buckled under the Clinton pressure even at that time.

#17 arjun: you should have stopped when you were ahead ("not that I care for your opinion"). You then proceed to seek my opinion..ha! ha!

dost mittar: I read your article just now and I think you give mush more credit than he deserves.

Two elected PMs were meeting to discuss peace - and Mush does Kargill and pulls the carpet away from under them. Common sense would say this was a deliberate act to sabotage the peace effort. WHy would NS collaborate in making himself look like a fool?

The nuclear bombs had made it quite clear that neither country could afford a war - so it was only natural for Pakistan and India to move towards peace after that. So, please dont credit Musharraf for moving towards peace - he is very good at patting himself on the back for all kinds of things anyway.

tahmed#20:

"WHy would NS collaborate in making himself look like a fool?"

I do not think that he collaborated although be probably had been informed. But I also think that if the Kargil operation had not turned into a disaster and had forced Indians to withdraw from Siachen, Nawaz would have taken full credit for it.

"The nuclear bombs had made it quite clear that neither country could afford a war - so it was only natural for Pakistan and India to move towards peace after that."

I don't think so. Kargil operation was launched after nuclearisation of the two countries; indeed nuclear weapons were the raison d'etre of the Kargil opoeration; the thinking was that nuclear weapons had made an all-out war between the two countries impossible, therefore Pakistan was free to engage in proxy warfare and limited operations, such as Kargil. You may want to check several of Romair's posts at that time expounding this viewpoint.

PS: What are you doing at the computer at this time? Have you taken "parkhatti" (that's to test your expertise in punjabi) from sleep?

“The recently concluded elections in Pakistan were unprecedented in many ways. One of the less noticed aspects of these elections was the complete lack of hostility towards India during the electoral campaigns of various candidates and political parties. There was no rhetoric calling for a thousand-year war; no mention of completing the “unfinished business” of the Partition, no talk of jihad to liberate Muslim brothers suffering under the Hindu yoke nor of bleeding India with a thousand cuts - not even of providing principled support to the Kashmiris’ struggle for freedom. This was a vast change from most previous elections when political parties vied with each other for anti-Indian rhetoric.”

Give me one election in Pakistan since 1970 when any of the above mentioned issues were part of any campaign. The Pseudo-political writer in pursuing his own agenda makes up stories as he pleases. Any citation any reference that would show that India got more than a passing reference in any elections after 1988.

Otoh, give me one election in India since the partition when Pakistan was not an issue in that election. These Pakistan obsessed nutcases are found on the Indian side of the border. Pakistan has no claim on any Indian geographical entity whereas every Indian it seems has a claim over all of Pakistan. I know most idiot-bred in the Indian slums would not even understand this. The communal mindset rules the Indian politics; there is no Indian mind which can think about issues beyond the religious differences and there is no Indian who can reconcile with the fact that the people everywhere in the world have a right of self determination. Pakistani exercised that right in 1947. There might be weaknesses in the political methodologies used but once the right is exercised, it is final.

All major Indian political parties agreed with the partition and facilitated it. Once that is done, the Indians should live with that decision as any honorable nation would.
Honor and Indians??? Sounds contradictory…isn’t it?

The rest of the article is just rehashing of many ups and downs in the Pak-India relationship. Neighbors routinely interfere in each others affairs and Pakistan and India would continue to do that. The level of the interference would have peaks and valleys but it will never end.

Btw, in the recent history, the first shot, way before the Kargil, was fired by India when it tested nukes and the Indian government pointed out that the purpose of the nuke tests was to intimidate Pakistan.

Re: # 21

"I don't think so. Kargil operation was launched after nuclearisation of the two countries; indeed nuclear weapons were the raison d'etre of the Kargil opoeration; the thinking was that nuclear weapons had made an all-out war between the two countries impossible, therefore Pakistan was free to engage in proxy warfare and limited operations, such as Kargil. You may want to check several of Romair's posts at that time expounding this viewpoint."

Quite right!!

Nuclear test brought symmetry of information about each other's actual nuclear potential- since underassessment in any future conflict would have led to exchanges. Now, it was open that Pakistan could bomb any one any time. It also exposed AQ Khan's black market. It was a good thing in a way.
This was a classical nuclear black mail situation that we find even Iran is adapting when it threatened US with appropriate response and great pain if it attacked Iran.
With the information about nukes in open - there was "symmetry of information" and a realistic estimation of the situation was possible - that means covert warfare and nuclear blackmail becomes apparant and open to all!!

#21
"You may want to check several of Romair's posts at that time expounding this viewpoint."

One great citation to prove the point. Romair can't even distinguish between a proxy war and the real war.

Only a stupid would need to start proxy wars when the mother of all deterrents, the nukes had shown that any error of judgment would be catastrophic.

Kargil had nothing to do with India. It was as usual a Pak army ploy to bring down a political government that had just sacked the army COAS for interfering in the political affairs.

Indians fought this war in Indian media and that was all there is to that war.

Author,

Thank USA, not musharraf.

HP#22:

". The communal mindset rules the Indian politics; there is no Indian mind which can think about issues beyond the religious differences and there is no Indian who can reconcile with the fact that the people everywhere in the world have a right of self determination. Pakistani exercised that right in 1947."

- where is there any reference to religious differences in this article?
Where does this article deny the right of self-determination?

This article is not about the creation of Pakistan. However, the common understanding is that it was a political settlement between major political actors involved in the drama; self-determination, I believe, was held only in the frontier province and some districts of Assam.

As far as previous Pakistani elections are concerned, I am going by my recollection; one of my vivid recollection is of Nawaz Sharif holding a gun as a symbol of his support for Kashmiri insurgents in the elections held in the 90s.

zee:

I did acknowledge the US contribution as well. As I said, the seminal event was the Indian mobilisation of armed forces along the border in 2002 and the subsequent US intervention. By this time, India had become vulnerable to the US economic pressure.

HP:
"Neighbors routinely interfere in each others affairs and Pakistan and India would continue to do that. The level of the interference would have peaks and valleys but it will never end."

Yes, they would but I do think that there has been a fundamental transformation in the relationship.

The chnages in India – Pakistan relationships can be attributed to the change in communication technology.

The flow of information between the countries has been tremendous. In such flow of information … it is tough for a state to keep up the propaganda.

These things just happen… ussually govts have little to do with these things… Soon the pakistani politcal establishment will start looking more like the Indian establishment..

Credit to Pervez Musharraf is that … he did not try to stop these things….

While we can fight Pakistani terrorists and their Pakistani state sponsors, there is nothing we can do about Indians who insist on being wilfully ignorant.


From satp.org

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/index.html

India Assessment 2007

Since 2002, terrorism-related fatalities have demonstrated a secular decline in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), and this trend continued in 2006, with a total of 1,116 persons killed. More than 40,000 people have lost their lives in the conflict since 1989, and, even at present, an average of nearly 100 lives is lost each month in J&K.

Despite the declines in indices of violence, the State continues to suffer from high levels of violence and subversion. Pakistan’s military regime, which was forced to scale down its proxy-war under intense international scrutiny, has nevertheless shown no indication of dismantling the vast infrastructure of terrorism on its soil. According to the Union Home Ministry’s (MHA) "Status Paper on Internal Security Situation" (presented in Parliament on November 30, 2006), the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir is yet to be dismantled and is being "used by Pak based and Pak ISI sponsored outfits like JeM [Jaish-e-Mohammed], LeT [Lashkar-e-Toiba], Al-Badr, HM [Hizb-ul-Mujahideen], etc."

Amidst the hype on people-to-people contacts and confidence-building measures (CBMs), it is evident that the reduced levels of violence in J&K primarily reflect a tactical rather than strategic shift in the Pakistani calculus, as a two-pronged strategy of parallel talks and terrorism is pursued by the Musharraf regime to secure its ambitions against India.

Talks between India and Pakistan thus continue under the aegis of the Composite Dialogue, even as terrorism in J&K, and sporadically in other parts of the India, persists. At the same time, Pakistan has been complaining bitterly about the slow pace of ‘progress’ towards the goals it seeks to secure on the negotiating table, having failed to achieve these through its vicious campaign of terrorism over 17 years. The peace process, consequently, remains, tactical rather than substantive, as the hiatus between the rival positions on Kashmir remains unbridgeable, and much of the ‘progress’ has been in peripheral areas, such as the restoration of communication links, people-to-people exchanges, Track Two diplomacy and a range of confidence building measures. At the same time, the ground situation in J&K remains a cause for concern, as a stream of infiltrators continues to find its way into the terror wracked State. While the various CBMs currently operational between the two countries may have strengthened processes of 'emotional enlistment', have failed to alter India's and Pakistan's stated positions on the Kashmir issue, or to change the fundamentals of the conflict in and over Kashmir. An end to the bloodshed in the State, consequently, seems as unlikely today as it was at any given point since the dramatic escalation of the militancy in 1989-90.

...

Islamist Terrorism outside J&K and the Northeast

At least 270 people died in Islamist terrorist violence in locations outside J&K and the Northeast during 2006. The significant incidents included:

March 7: At least 21 civilians were killed and 62 others injured in three serial bomb explosions at a temple and railway station in Varanasi. Seven bombs were later defused, including four that had been planted on the Gowdolia-Dasashwamedh Ghat Road near the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Hours after the blasts, a suspected LeT terrorist was shot dead during an encounter with the police in the Gosaiganj area on the outskirts of Lucknow city.

April 14: Two bombs exploded inside the Jama Masjid at Delhi injuring approximately 14 persons, including a woman and a girl.

June 1: Three suspected LeT terrorists were shot dead during an abortive attempt to storm the headquarters of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing Hindu organization, at Nagpur in Maharashtra.

July 11: At least 200 persons were killed and over 700 others injured in seven bomb blasts targeting the railway network in the city of Mumbai. First class compartments of local trains at Mira-Bayandhar, Jogeshwari, Mahim, Santacruz, Khar, Matunga and Borivli stations on the Western Railway were targeted.

September 8: Forty people killed and 65 sustain injuries in three bomb explosions at Malegaon town in the Nashik District of Maharashtra.

According to the MHA’s Status Paper, the current strategy of Pakistan-based terrorist groups is to:

* Maintain a continuous flow of finances to sustain the terrorist networks in India

* Target vital installations and economic infrastructure in India

* Recruit and train local modules

* Attack soft targets like market places, public transport system, places of worship and congregation, etc.

* Provoke communal tensions to create a wedge between communities

* Supply hardware through land and sea routes

The Status Paper discloses that the LeT and JeM also use territory and elements in Bangladesh and Nepal for movement of terrorists and finances. Army chief J. J. Singh, on December 27, 2006, stated that "As terrorists are finding it hard to penetrate the fence and new anti-infiltration systems placed all along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir and in Punjab… The areas bordering Nepal and Bangladesh are still porous and intelligence reports suggest that terrorists are trying to use them to infiltrate into India."

According to data compiled by the Institute for Conflict Management, at least 81 Inter-Services Intelligence-Jihadi modules have been disrupted just over the years 2004-2006, leading to hundreds of arrests across India – outside Jammu and Kashmir and the Northeast – in locations that extend from Uttaranchal in the North, to Andhra Pradesh in the South, and from Gujarat in the West to West Bengal in the East. These modules had been tasked to target security and vital installations, communication links, and commercial and industrial centres, as well as to provoke instability and disorder by circulating large quantities of counterfeit currency and by drug trafficking. The National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan had stated, on July 28, 2006, that Indian security and nuclear installations are under "very serious threat" from the LeT, which may be planning a "major assault".

Worse, terrorist attacks by Pakistan-backed groups have occurred in places as far as Delhi, Mumbai, Malegaon, and Varanasi in 2006. Terrorist attacks in places like Mumbai and Varanasi in 2006 and earlier at Bangalore (December 28, 2005) and New Delhi (October 29, 2005) are only the more visible evidence of a long-term war of attrition by Pakistani state agencies and their jihadi surrogates, intended to undermine India’s political stability, by increasingly attacking its economic, scientific and technological strengths. The frequency, spread and, in some cases, intensity of these operations in other parts of the country has seen some escalation in the past years, as international pressure on Pakistan to end terrorism in J&K has diminished levels of ‘deniable’ engagement in that theatre, and as violence in J&K demonstrates a continuous secular decline since the events of September 11, 2001 in the US.

It is important to note, however, that despite occasional and inevitable terrorist ‘successes’, this relentless strategy – which has targeted virtually every concentration of Muslim populations in India for decades – has overwhelmingly failed to secure a base within the community, beyond a minuscule radical fringe. Further, the record of intelligence and security agency successes against such subversion and terror, although lacking the visibility and drama of a terrorist strike, is immensely greater than the record of the successes of this strategy.

Ananth,

This is just not true. Communication seems to have had the opposite effect.

Chowk is an excellent example. It has the ability to take the most gungho of the "lets sing kumbaye" South Asian types in Pakistan and turn them extremely anti-Indian.

dost-mittarji
Sorry to touch upon the personal but this article will not be complete without an acknowledgement that the author's own unarmed friend was killed in a university campus by a Pak-trained Pak-funded attacker who got his orders from Musharraf's govt agents.

It seems the he-monkey circle-jerkers called in reinforcements. We now have an accompanying she-monkey mujra as well.

Dost Mitter,

Your article is at most a wishful fantacy. Every thing that has been acheived, the rail line, the trade etc. can be voided in a few minutes. Musheraff time has seen the rise to power of the jihadis, now they are well entrenched in the military and the madrassas. During Mushis time, the country has become jihadised more than ever, Kargill was a true jihadic war where the pak troops behaved in true jihadi fashion by mutilating and killing those who were captured, un=precednted in indo-pak wars.

There can be no ondo-pak raproachment untill and unless the notion of TNt is removed from the pak mind set. Mushy did nothing to change the k for kafir education of the pak govt schools, during his time the madrassas flourished. The army has accpted teh superior fire power of the jihadis, muishy has surrendered the army to the jihadis. And that is bad news for the world and india raproachment.

#27 Posted by dost_mittar,

I would tend to think US pressured both India and musharraf to de-escalate on their common border to free Pak Army resources for support at the Western border for Bush's GWOT. That necessitated thawing of Pak's relationship with India.

However musharraf may have tricked USA there too because the army of 80,000 deployed thereafter at Afghanistan border/Fata was almost fully paramiltary i.e. Frontier Corps, while regular army remained where it was.

The struggle for independence of India was a movement encompassing the whole subcontinent and it produced an entire generation of leaders, who could steer the country in its nascent stage. So, even when Gandhi was no more on the scene, India continued with Nehru and other political leaders who had been well groomed to provide solid leadership.
On the other hand, after MAJ there was no dynamic leader who could rise to lead Pakistan, and the chaotic situation that followed gave Ayub Khan the opportunity to meddle in governance of Pakistan. The military which had tasted blood would not like to leave the political scene. Musharraf's take over of power is just another chapter in the military dominated political life of Pakistan. He is just a person of ordinary intellect ( although he has good linguistic skills which, despite his being a Muhajir, enable him to speak Urdu in Punjabi accent in front of the troops)who derived his power from the army of which he was commander. All generals in Pak army think that they can rule Pakistan better than the civilians.
Until this is corrected and the rudder is firmly in civil hands, Pakistan will not be able to make progress as a democracy.

In fact, had ZAB been strong enough, he should have put the army firmly in the barracks particularly after the humiliating defeat of 1971 which dismembered Pakistan.

As for the so called change in Musharraf's policy toward India, it is in fact the humiliating withdrawal of Pak troops from Kargil heights convinced him that he cannot mess with India. So the next best option was to make friendly overtures. Mind you, his position on Kashmir is only acceptance of what Pakistan will in any case never get.

jayp makes an important point. Under Musharraf, war for Pakistani Army has become jihadized. It was already headed that way before Musharraf came to power but with Kargil consolidated the jihadization. In earlier wars, it was two professional armies fighting each other and appreciating the other side's bravery and valour at the same time(whatever the rhetoric of war).

During Kargil the Pak Army showed that it has no compunction in mutilating and dishonoring enemy soldiers and in fighting alongside civilian jihadis who do the same to unarmed civilians and follow no professional code of fighting except absolute violence in the name of religion.

The rationale for the Kargill war is in his first address to the paki nation. He declared that the accords with India are not worth the paper it is written on. Only thing that changed was India amassing troops on pak border.

Mushy is a confirmed war monger.

He stopped the operations in waziristan only when 200 of apki troops were captured, and then he negotiated a peace deal with the jihadis. Mushy knows only the language of the bullets.

Now with the elections and the installation of a civilian govt, there will be unified command for the army and the jihadis. What we saw today is the last attack on the army, here after it will be on the ministers and civilians.

The elections are bad news for india and afghanistan, the jihadis are going to get a free reign.

#21 dost mittar: if you are going to a business lunch with the shopkeeper next to your shop, and your employee tells you he plans to break into that shopkeepers shop while you are having lunch - would you still see any sense in having a business lunch?

Replace yourself with NS, the shopkeeper next door with Vajpayee, and the employee with Musharraf and you will see the absurdity you think happened.


As for your saying Kargill happened before the 1998 explosions - instead of my correcting you here I suggest you simply google to correct this impression. The sequence of events (as I have been repeating once in a while to jog Indian memories) was this:

1. BJP tries to bully Pakistan by conducting 5 nuclear explosions on its doorstep, followed up with threats from Advani saying this changes the picture on Kashmir. In typical brahmin arrogance, BJP assumes Pakistan cannot do what India has done (i.e. develop nuclear technology, even though it has been around for decades).

2. Pakistan knocks Advani out of his lungi by giving India a "fitting response".

3. Indians discover the virtues of peace with Pakistan - Advani comes running to Pakistan and assures Pakistanis that Pakistan is a reality (as if Allah Ditta ricksha driver of Lahore really cares what vajpayee thinks). Nawaz Sharif graciously acknowledges Vajpayees return to reality and proceeds to meet him.

5. In the meantime, India's gift to Pakistan (Musharraf), figures peace with India will sideline the military. After all, who needs a large standing army if you have already gotten rid of your worst enemy by making him your friend?

6. Musharraf attacks Kargill, thus outsmarting Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee and sabotaging the peace process (and getting hundreds of brave soldiers killed).

Hope this clarifies where I am coming from. Dont mind the bit of Pakistani chauvinism tossed in (for the benefit of some of your countrymen to help feed their spite for Pakistan). ;-)

PS I was up late last night indeed.

#40 by tahmed32

What is typical Brahmin arrogance? I am a Brahmin and I don't remember seeing a Brahmin more arrogant than anyone else. You must have met more Brahmin samples than I as one have met all my life.

Chowk is an excellent example. It has the ability to take the most gungho of the "lets sing kumbaye" South Asian types in Pakistan and turn them extremely anti-Indian.


This is true.

But I think the "initial feeling" was based on romantic notions after watching a few "Bollywood movies" and not based on facts or truth.

The more you learn the truth, the more you can appreciate why the "animosity" exists and there are very good reasons for maintaining that "animosity".

What is typical Brahmin arrogance? I am a Brahmin and I don't remember seeing a Brahmin more arrogant than anyone else. You must have met more Brahmin samples than I as one have met all my life.


I think he was referring to the "harimau" types. of the "old Brahmin" school. I should admit that I have not seen any peculiar trait of arrogance with Brahmins (mostly young) that I have not seen in others.

#22 Posted by HP on February 25, 2008 9:08:28 pm


Otoh, give me one election in India since the partition when Pakistan was not an issue in that election.


Umm..the price of onions are more of an issue in India than pakiland...

No question that Musharraf has allowed some positive things to happen...he deserves credit at least for not getting in the way...

But I am much less hopeful about the future. Pakistan has a 60 year history of being for "rent" by the highest bidder. Whoever will pay the elite class, will get the country to follow them.

So at various times it has been rented by USA, Saudi Arabia and China. Odd though this is, most pakistanis seem to view this with pride and not with shame. I assume this has to do with some psychological need to be "equal" to india - the means employed and lack of dignity dont seem to matter.

So why would this change? For example, Saudi Arabia is now sitting on trillions of $ and it would be happy to have 100 million wahhabi fanatics - and the pakis would be happy to oblige and in fact have more or less eliminted their traditional indic/sufi/syncretic islam for this money. For example, declaring the shia non-muslim alone could lead to 10-20 billions in payment and I know this has already been hinted at.

I think the last few years are an aberration in that no paymaster was available for pakistan other than the US and, post 9/11 the US finally realized that its "allies" had something to do with 3000 dead in NYC. But that period is finite and is probably ending anyway...

DM,

Your analysis is quite accurate. There were several factors responsible for the Indo-Pak thaw in the past few years. India's booming economy and domination of the knowledge economy has been a huge factor in changing pak mindset about India. It is now looked at favorably as a place to do business and make money. Secondly the nukes on both sides made any warfare, including covert warfare, meaningless. It was just a waste of resources with no chance of a return on investment. Thirdly the WOT had changed things upside down in Pakistan with the jihadis becoming a target rather than a parter of the pak elite.

Lastly, every feud has a life cycle. If the feud is unable to continue with tit for tat attacks, it dies out a natural death. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Now that India-Pak are in no position to harm each other militarily, the feud had no future. OTOH, after 60 years, people were tired of the same old thing and wanted a change.

However, all said and done, Musharraf did the right thing and he deserves the credit. There is no two ways about it. Would someone else have done the same? I doubt it. No civilian PM could have talked about moving away from UN resolutions on Kashmir. So Musharraf has contributed to Indo-Pak peace more than any other Pak leader to date.

DM,

The peace process would have happened with or without Musharaff. The idea that two nuclear armed neighbors
should pursue war is not logical. Nobobdy would win!
Peace is the only way to go.
The Kashmir issue is taking a rest. But it will return
unless a lasting solution is found.

Ras

D-M sahib,

1. What does "thaw" in India-Pakistan relationship mean? I do not see any dip in the "trend" of Pakistan aided terrorism in India. The key-word is trend, minor fluctuations around the trend can be caused as much by weather as the Pakistani dictator.

2. People to people contact are mostly confined to a small set of North Indians. This is positive no doubt (Yuvraj's father considers Afridi a part of his family). But let us not blow this up.

3. Democratically elected Pakistani leaders will back "freedom-fighters" in India just as democratically elected Indian leaders will provide covert support to Baluchis and perhaps even Taliban (this I am just guessing). This will go on as long as domestic "groups" become economically and politically better off, in their respective countries, due to such "interference". Of course, the cannon-fodder will be provided by the easily manipulable "unwashed".

4. In short, Indians will not be worse off without the Pakistani dictator. Pakistanis sure will. So it is a Pareto improvement. (Point 4. is not a comment on your article, it is just my opinion).

Dear tahmed,

It perhaps is true that Indians are pissed off at Pakistan becomming a different country, but I have difficulty in buying this hypothesis. At least as far is today's India is concerned.

Today's India has in it two different countries in it complete with their own laws (or lack thereof), culture, fetishes etc. These countries belong to the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. The former, are at a loss when they see the 'have-nots' create trouble. After all they made it by working hard! Now some of the have nots who are creating "trouble" (or provide cannon-fodder for trouble) happen to be Muslims and are to some extent supported by the Pakistani state and cheered on by some Pakistani people. This gets the goat of the "haves" ... and you see them rave and rant in chowk.

The actual trouble brewing in India has very little to do with Pakistan (of course the Pakistani state will gladly egg this on if it can). Just keep track of wahst the Naxals are doing and what is being done to them (and the people who live in these regions). The fun is just starting in India.

#26 Posted by dost_mittar

“Self-determination, I believe, was held only in the frontier province and some districts of Assam.”

It is hard to discuss political issues with people whose political understanding is based on what they read in daily Newspapers. There is so much available on the net now that if you don’t understand a political terminology, you can always Google it and learn at least something about it.

What happened in NWFP and Assam was not Self-determination. It is called referendum or plebiscite on issue.

Here is an explanation from wiki:
“Self determination is a principle, often seen as a moral and legal right, that "all peoples have the right [to] freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

ananth:

Yes, better communications do play a role and there is no better communication than people to people contact.

sadna#32:

Yes, I was very personally affected by my friend's assasination; I am still a friend of the family and am planning to meet the widow again tomorrow.

But I do not believe that my personal tragedy should make me lose sight of the overall reality; the need to reduce more useless deaths of innocent people and, in case of Pakistan, this would happen if there is no support for jihadi activities directed at India and Indians which, in turn, would happen if Pakistanis do not consider India to be their enemy. From what I see, this is happening more and more and jihad against India is losing its supporters in Pakistan.

It is not my position that this trend is irreversible but the more we can expand the India-friendly constituency in Pakistan, the more difficult it will become for the ruling elite to reignite the old hostile passions.

DM ji, #52 is very well argued, but still, somehow I feel, you will get a lot of 'beating up' on this thread, and all of it thoroughly well-deserved :)

India's saving grace is the rise of South India, where people don't have hangups like you do (or partly I do too) - always chasing a non-existent bird.

We just have a find a way to pass the political baton in their hands, so we as a people can focus on things we need to focus on. Best.

jayp#34:

"There can be no ondo-pak raproachment untill and unless the notion of TNt is removed from the pak mind set. Mushy did nothing to change the k for kafir education of the pak govt schools, during his time the madrassas flourished."

Well, there is as yet no removal of the tnt from the Pakistani mindset, although some people are beginning to more closely examine the costs and benefits of creating the new nation. From what I recall, Mush's education minister did ask for the revision of text books to make changes in some hateful passages.

zeemax#35:

I agree.

Re. Frontier Corps, I found it only from pav's posts. I wonder how come the US does not know about it? If their intelligence network in Pakistan is so inept, how can they ever hope to find OBL or anyone else they want to find?

Muqaddam#36:

"As for the so called change in Musharraf's policy toward India, it is in fact the humiliating withdrawal of Pak troops from Kargil heights convinced him that he cannot mess with India."

I believe that the change came much later; as late as July 2001, he was quite adamant in his position during the Agra summit.

tahmed32:

"As for your saying Kargill happened before the 1998 explosions -"

Ek guzaarish hai aap se: please read my posts twice before responding. I said exactly the opposite, namely the nuclear weapons existed at the time of the Kargil operation but they did not prevent Musharraf's adventurism.

Re. your shopkeeper's analogy, I never said that Musharraf did the right thing in removing the duly elected prime minister. But what he did after he came to power is something else. To give an analogy (please read twice to ensure you dont misinterpret), while I am unhappy that Muslim\ conquerors defeated my ancestors, I am quite willing to acknowlege the significant contributions made by Muslims to Indian heritage.

pmishra#45:

"But I am much less hopeful about the future. Pakistan has a 60 year history of being for "rent" by the highest bidder. Whoever will pay the elite class, will get the country to follow them."

Please read Ranjit's post above yours, with which I am in full agreement. For the first time, Pakistanis are looking at India with admiration and respect and not disdain. Earlier, some of them used to admire our democracy but found nothing else to admire, as they were doing better than Indians in terms of standard of living, economic well-being and physical infrastructure. However, they have noticed the rapid progress of India during the last fifteen years and the favourable international image that it has been creating for itself, while the opposite is happening to their own country. In fact, their admiration for Indian democracy is somewhat diminished as they see the democratic system producing leaders like Narendra Modi.

dost-mittar
I am curious, if the assassins had been Bajrang Dal goons who had trained in Gujarat, would we ever have had an article from you saying 'Modi must be given credit for not having any riots after 2002'.

You are talking of ending of a Pakistani state policy which is run by those who care little for what people think. Their budget though a huge fraction of the national one and paid for by general public is a one-line item which no civilian official can question forget about ordinary people.

Musharraf cannot be given credit for promoting peace in the face of his continuing jihad and subversion policy, whatever reasons you cite for his continuing jihad and subversion policy.

Ranjit#46:

I fully agree with you. I look towards future with cautious optimism.

Ras#47:

Yes, nuclear armed countries have to act more responsibly.

As for the Kahmir issue, I think that it still has a lot of emotional baggage on both sides but I have a feeling that it is no longer considered to be the sha-rug by Pakistanis.

GT#48,49:

I beg to differ. I do see a qualitative change this time. When was the last time that we had so many confidence building measures taking place? when was the last time a Pakistani leader called the peace process irreversible? (the ususal line was that the peace process cannot move forward unless the Kashmir problem is solved first). When was the last time trains, buses, trucks and airplane services were expanding between the two countries? When was the last time that trade was growing exponentially between the two countries? And when was the last time that Hindus were able to visit their holy places in Pakistan? Even if the peace process is not irreversible now, it will become in a few years if the momentum continues.

GT#48,49:

I beg to differ. I do see a qualitative change this time. When was the last time that we had so many confidence building measures taking place? when was the last time a Pakistani leader called the peace process irreversible? (the ususal line was that the peace process cannot move forward unless the Kashmir problem is solved first). When was the last time trains, buses, trucks and airplane services were expanding between the two countries? When was the last time that trade was growing exponentially between the two countries? And when was the last time that Hindus were able to visit their holy places in Pakistan? Even if the peace process is not irreversible now, it will become so in a few years if the momentum continues.

Regarding haves and have nots in India, I think that there are distinct differences between the two types of terrorist activities taking place in India. The naxalites clearly represent the have-nots but there is hardly any Muslim in their ranks; on the other hand, the Muslims taking part in terrorist activities, now more and more home grown, are more like their educated counterparts in the western countries; there are highly educated professionals in their ranks who are out to avenge real or perceived injustices to their community.

HP#50:

"It is hard to discuss political issues with people whose political understanding is based on what they read in daily Newspapers."


Then please don't! I am what I am and cannot be what I am not.

#63 Posted by dost_mittar on February 26, 2008 9:11:19 am

here's the bottom line:

pakis want indian kashmir i.e. they want to alter the status quo..there's no way they're going to succeed..so the only way to peace is for them to STFU and accept the status quo...which is what they're doing..accepting the status quo because they can't do anything to alter it...everything else flows from that...bus service that nobody uses..train services that run empty because visas are hard to come by...

of course, that acceptance is only because of pureland's precarious situation...the minute they think the situation is in their favor, they'll go back to the jihadi option..this isn't speculation...there's a precedence for this...right after 9/11 when dubya made mushy grease up and bend over, people like capt clueless thought pakiland would now be the bees knees in the US..and with uncle sam's wind in her sails, pakiland could afford to sic the jihadis on india at not cost to itself..the bleed india option..I can point you to his exact words if you want..

well...450+ dead pakis just this year has taught them a temporary lesson..

This article is a showcase of Indian problems in its neighborhood. India is a democracy and it is assumed that democracies attempt to resolve disputes through dialogs and persuasion. But in India’s case every dispute it has with its neighbors becomes unsolvable as soon as it emerges even on a very small scale. India has problems with Pakistan, with Bangladesh, with Sri Lanka and even with Bhutan, Nepal and that tiny thing Sikkim.

India has problems with China going back to 50 years. It has problems with Pakistan going back to 60 years and it has problems with Bangladesh going back to now almost 40 years. And if you ask India, all these problems are because of the countries in its neighborhood.

This article by DM shows how much Indians hate introspection. The smaller countries in the Indian neighborhood only have problems with India because the Indian democracy is so inept. While its failure to resolve internal problems is legendary, its failure to resolve international problems with its neighbor is perfunctory!

The strangest of democracy in the world, on close examination, would get failing grades on every issue it encountered in the last 6o years after the Brits left. The magnitude of the internal problems, unresolved by the successive Indian democratic government, is mounting with every passing year. The country has no highway system, its airports are from the 19th centuries, its railroad still has un-repaired railroad stations from 1930s.

The poverty in India is actually on the rise, the food shortages chronic, undernourishment is the norm. Social, religious and caste issues suck every ounce of political energy of any government. It is one democracy where to win elections you have to find a dispute with another religious group. Still its desire is to be the regional power.

There is no harm in having desires that are unattainable but in India’s case it truly can become the regional powerhouse. Not just the military powerhouse but the economic powerhouse that it deserves to be.

The first step in becoming a regional power is to create harmony in the region otherwise you are just a bully who would be resented, poked, chipped, stabbed and taunted at every step of the way. That is what is happening with India.

Pakistan junta dumps its problems on India in the form of infiltrators almost at will, Bangladesh allows its poor to cross borders because the Indian State would not work for any solution with Bangladesh.

Until 1992 the country had no economic policy and finally when it was bailed out by the IMF, it picked up the IMF recommended system of trickle down economy without any questions asked. Trickle down works very well when the workers are integrated in one economic and industrial system. In India’s case the trickle down would take a millennium or two to work!

Recently, the economic guru and the Shoukat Aziz of India, MM Singh was publicly heard musing over the failure of the economy to reduce poverty. Despite the great scheme of some rupees every month to families that have no visible means of income.

With a country as big as India, there may be a few things that are good or perhaps work but that happens not by some design. It all happens because some factors take a form out of chaotic policy initiatives or some international economic complications allow the trickle down effects to reach India.

But for every Indian, like the author of this article, all Indian problems are created by others…poor Indians just don’t know how to resolve them.

#66 Posted by HP on February 26, 2008 9:49:22 am


India is a democracy and it is assumed that democracies attempt to resolve disputes through dialogs and persuasion.


No amount of dialog or persuasion is going to make India give you kashmir on a platter...get over it..


India has problems with Pakistan, with Bangladesh, with Sri Lanka and even with Bhutan, Nepal and that tiny thing Sikkim.


let's see...we've got paki terrorists in india..paki terrorists in afghanistan..and the jundullah guys in iran...top top it off, you're got uighur terrorists who were trained in pakiland..

of course, there's the paki terrorism problem in the US, UK, canada, australia, spain, france australia etc etc.


Recently, the economic guru and the Shoukat Aziz of India, MM Singh was publicly heard musing over the failure of the economy to reduce poverty.


MMS is the shaukat aziz of india? so he maniuplated GDP numbers to show a higher growth rate? used the meaningless per capita income(instead of the PPP basis) to tout increasing incomes? told everyone things were peachy when inflation was more than 10%...

dm #57 sorry to have mis-read your post where you in fact had the the correct sequence of events on nuclearization and kargill.

Nevertheless, my basic point remains valid: the BJP attitude with Pakistan took a 180 degree turn after nuclearization, with threats and public statemetns following indian explosions being replaced with talk of peace and Vajpayee visiting Pakistan within the year or so.

Nawaz Sharif has strong business roots and was never one for saber-rattling with India (it is a fact that even after the Indian explosions he was in two minds, being pushed by Clinton to take the so-called "high road" and not respond in kind and by the Pakistan military to give India a "fitting reply" - and NS then took the latter). So, it was only natural for him as a man with a business background to respond positively to BJP's change in tune after the "fitting reply".

So, if you must write an article praising a military dictator for a peace process, then you need to give due emphasis to 1. the structural change in military equation due to nuclearization which caused BJP to magically see the light wrt the existence of Pakistan; and 2. the fact that it is this same military dictator who put the process on ice for a few years with his sabotage of the peace talks through kargill.

Re: # 68
That Pakistan had nuclear weapons was known to India. The explosions conducted by India were a successful attempt to get the Pakistanis to reveal what they had, so this talk of Indian leaders going soft on their posture on Pakistan consequent to the explosions is just bullshit.

"The explosions conducted by India were a successful attempt to get the Pakistanis to reveal what they had,"

Wow! India had to test nukes to make Pakistan go public with its nukes. That has to be one of the best diplomatic coup or the strategic move ever witnessed in the international arena. Indians are really strategic geniuses!

Was the Indian government really this idiot? All it had to do was ask the US. They knew Pakistan had the bomb!

#69 Posted by muqaddam on February 26, 2008 10:26:08 am


Indian leaders going soft on their posture on Pakistan consequent to the explosions is just bullshit.


That's prophetboy in a nutshell...bullshit...

D-M sahib,

"When was the last time that we had so many confidence building measures taking place?"

And what do "confidence building measures" do? Have they they decreased violence? Why can't a peace process not be reversed? How many people use the trains etc. to cross the border, and how does it reduce the propensity of states to induce violence in each other's countries? Who cares as to now much Punjabi traders make in carting goods over the border? (Perhaps the customs people do because now they get lesser bribes).

D-M sahib, the dictator does not matter. Holding candles does not matter too. The US or Pakistan will not solve the problem of "terrorism" for India. Indians will have to do so by themselves. Furthermore, to do so effectively we do not need to become a global power. We can start by small effective steps: (i) Increasing the budget of the IB; (ii) Cracking down on corruption in the Border Security Force; (iii) Cracking down on the cowboys in the Indian army and rewarding "intelligence" both in the army and police; (iv) discard socialistic land laws and introduce genuine property rights; (v) revitalize democracy in panchayats; (vi) force politicians to demand a law whereby MPs, MLAs etc. can be recalled before their term ends.

These measures will help India much more than the dictator and candles in the border.

Dost Sahib:

Musharraff has been a catalyst for change in Pakistan. He did not create conditions for change between India and Pakistan. Almost all visible conditions were external.

Internal changes in India, and Pakistan (HP’s travelogue) are very significant.

Today’s India, and it seems today’s Pakistan also, have little interest in war making.

This to me is a generational change. Aspirations and dreams are different. Shell-shock, hatred, anger etc. are replacing in the generation of grand kids of parition, with adversary yes, enemey may be not.

Middle class is now sizeable and quite vibrant in both countries. It is ready to compete without being a cannon fodder. I read somewhere here that now Shahid Afridi is treated as part of the family by Yuvraj's father. This demonstrates adversary not enemy spirit.

According to my personal experience in India, and my readings of Pakistani viewpoints mainly here at Chowk, middle class in India is busy in acquiring consumer products, education, and wealth.

IT has given many Indians new success models and role models of success through entrepreneurship. I know for fact fashion design (30% of Victoria's Secret production comes out Sri Lanka), automobile and healthcare services are well in line.

Pakistani middle class is in no mood to support their Army. Middle class there now seems to blame Army for impeding progress and now bringing the nation to the brink. Once the blame game is over in Pakistan, you will find younger Pakistanis to be as keen to discover their magic bullets, as today's India.

A few Pakistani success stories tied to India connection need to happen next to put this equation between the two countries to the next orbit. Can anyone stop this from happening? I do not think so.

I cannot believe Shoaib Akhtar, and other Pakistani players with their riches coming from Indian Premier League will want to go back and fight in Kashmir to compete. Indian Kashmiris are not blind they too will see and read about them. Barrier to entry is their own talent and capabilities, much as in IT.

The competition needs to change from competing with India to competing in India, or for better marketing competition in South Asia.

I can see this handwriting being written on the wall as we debate.

Shoaib Akhtars are not just performers, they are star performers. In today's world star performers are not limited within a nation-state. Bill Gates & co proved it a generation ago, and are the role models for these start performers.

Their successes have potential to become talk of the town, and drown, Ganesh mutant and mother burner rants of HP mians of Pakistan. If this older generation does not have to the new tune, HP Mians run the risk of being dumped in a dumpster. Younger south asians of the middle class have no patience for such rants.

These trends are called secular trends. They produce changes which are phenomenal. These changes do not happen all the time, but when they start, they change the landscape so completely and in the process produce new leaders and new stars. Romair may not realize, but he is in a similarly unique position with regards to integrated services (not IT) phenomena that is unstoppable in south asia.

Adversarial spirit is still alive and going strong. Hopefully this spirit will bring a new competition among South Asians. Musharraff is a mere catalyst. The changes that forced his hand may soon be responsible for his demise too.

Musharraf is the Gorbachev of Pakistan, who is hell bent on dismantling the geographical as well as ideological borders of state of Pakistan - not to mention the culture, values, history, and livelihood of Pakistanis. Therefore, Musharraf is important to all those forces that have been and are enemies of state of pakistan. Enough said.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Actually, when I ask the most important question about the "Jazba-e-Jehad" of the Pakistanis now they are feeling better after elections- one can see the shrug as if it is a foregone conclusion.

#75 First IslamIslam, now ALlah mian himself - another indian clown defining his entire presence on chowk with his hindu-chauvinism!!

the monkey show goes on..present a little bit of reality to the monkeys and watch the monkeys hop in horror!! ha! ha!

HP #70 What you say is quite reasonable. Please dont be cruel to our islam-obsessed hindu pandit-hates..you know their allergy to reason and facts and they start sneezing uncontrollably like Allah-mian and arjun below.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dost Mittar:

I read your article carefully (twice!). You were careful to not directly praise Musharraf for the changed relations between the 'two twins separated violently at birth'. But, you undoubtedly implied that the change is due to Musharraf when you write, 'But what one can say, with some degree of certainty, is that another leader could not have made a complete about-turn in his policies towards India as Musharraf did…Musharraf’s personality, especially his penchant for taking quick decisions and decisive actions under the changed circumstances in which Pakistan found itself following the US “war on terror” undoubtedly played a significant part in changing the direction of Indo-Pak relations.'

Your assessment of Musharraf is half true - the other truth is that India-Pakistan relationship nosedived with Musharraf's ascent. Nawaz Sharif and even Bhutto had cultivated better relationship with India. This omission is a serious one. You did not pin blame on Musharraf for reckless adventurism, without which any analysis of his impact on neighborly relations is incomplete.

You also gloss over the decay of Pakistani civil society and the systematic erosion of Pakistani institutions that Musharraf presided over - this alone has a tremendous negative impact on neighborly ties.

Last, but not the least, you did not analyze Musharraf's mindset for the Pakistani turnaround on the Taliban in his 'India - Lay Off!' speech after 9/11. Specifically, Musharraf alluded to the ultimatum that Richard Armitage gave him - "Pakistan is facing a very critical situation and I believe that after 1971, this is the most critical period. The decision we take today can have far-reaching and wide- ranging consequences. The crisis is formidable and unprecedented. If we take wrong decisions in this crisis, it can lead to worst consequences... The negative consequences can endanger Pakistan's integrity and solidarity."

This speech is also interesting because it clearly illuminates his thinking about India as a 'threat' and 'competitor', not a 'partner'.

If plainspeak about the US ultimatum was not enough, then Musharraf went one step further by referring to the 'Treaty of Hudaibiya'. This reference is critical. The Treaty of Hudaibiya was signed by Prophet Mohammed with the 'non-believers' of Mecca and brought temporary truce with his enemies while he focused his attention on the Jews. By referring to this treaty, Musharraf was highlighting the need for expediency over shared values (which the Prophet did not share with 'non-believers').

So, in sum, Musharraf as a statesman is a pretty short one. Don't be fooled, and worse, do not talk him up by ignoring the expedient shifts in position that he is capable of.

Source of Musharraf's 9/11 speech:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/pakistanpresident.htm

#79 so..when being shown the mirror, pandit-hate gets abusive. ha! ha!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 80

the 'Treaty of Hudaibiya'.

Indeed, that was the message that the entire nation of Pakistan could easily understand. Mush thought that it was the essence of his position- and part of the Islamic warfare tactics of strategic compromise that takes inspiration from Mohammad.
Infact, most Pakistanis are brought up on this concept of veiwing compromises with India on the basis of 'Treaty of Hudaibiya' since ages. Even Shimla Agreement was one such treaty that Pakistanis think becomes non binding when they are strong.
I feel that unless and until PAkistani state gets out of its Islamic view finder and views India diplomatically as a modern day neighboring nation state it would remain struck up in the rut it is now!!

In response to the now famous US line "you are either with us or against us" and facing the threat of Pakistan being bombed out, the great "statesman" in uniform started shitting bricks and overnight decided to dump the Talibs and present his backside to the Mricans, the only condition for his total capitulation being that India be left out of any operations to be carried out in Afganistan.

Ref Mullah32 #4

[trouble with indians like you is that you are obsessed with the slap in the face you received in 1947.]

The fcuker who got a slap in the face was Jinnah-bhai whose dream of a Great Pakistan was dashed b the partition of Punjab and Bengal.

The next fcuker who got a slap in the face was Bhutto whose ambition to become Prime Minister was thwarted by Mujibur Rahman winning a majority of the seats in Pakistans parliamentary election.

The next fcuker who got a slap in the face was Nawaz Sharif who was told to get out of Kargil or else.

The next in line to get a slap in the face was Jarnail-sahib Pervez Musharraf who was told to get behind the US or be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.

The only thing wrong with that last one was, it has been Stone Age for a long time in the Land of the Pure, what with The Book to End All Books being the Constitution.

[60 years later you are defining your entire existence on chowk as "slamming islam". you people are pathetic.]

You are the pathetic people who are defining your country as "Not India" But all of a sudden, you found out that the Green Passport might get you into Islamic jannat but not into most civilized countries without a body cavity search.

By the way, congratulations on parsing my name correctly after so many months.